Of course he did, Marshall was a Federalist ruling against him, but as I said, not being in the Constitution didn’t delay Jefferson a moment when he purchased Louisiana
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pedodent Biden broke federal law in nominating KBJ to the Supreme Court
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Of course he did, Marshall was a Federalist ruling against him, but as I said, not being in the Constitution didn’t delay Jefferson a moment when he purchased Louisiana
we have a right to nullify the governments unconstitutional use of power. there is a difference
We have the right to appeal to the courts.
We have the right to amend the Constitution.
What you are proposing is anarchy. We all will never agree on everything so if we don't at least agree on who will be the tiebreaker when we have a disagreement then there is no longer any civil society.
nullification is very simple. If the government wants to try someone for a crime that we consider the government has no power over, like marijuana, we simply vote 'not guilty'.......eventually the government will stop prosecuting to lose
So Legislative Law is defined by the individual
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Of course he did, Marshall was a Federalist ruling against him, but as I said, not being in the Constitution didn’t delay Jefferson a moment when he purchased Louisiana
indicative of almost every politician, ignoring their constitutional limits once they are in the positions of power
I get that in todays hyper political world, some questions should be avoided, but i'm left perplexed at how a question that basic can be a trap.
It was a trap, first of all it had little to do with her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice and secondly, Blackburn was anticipating a nebulous response that she could frame into a cultural war issue, the purpose of the question, and Jackson pulled the rug out from beneath her with her response
SmarterthanYou
rebel
We have the right to appeal to the courts.
We have the right to amend the Constitution.
What you are proposing is anarchy. We all will never agree on everything so if we don't at least agree on who will be the tiebreaker when we have a disagreement then there is no longer any civil society.
when the appeals to the courts fail? when we find ourselves unable to amend the Constitution because of power mongering resistance? HOW is it anarchy to acquit someone of marijuana possession?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
So Legislative Law is defined by the individual
when that legislative law violates constitutional limits, yes.
indicative of almost every politician, ignoring their constitutional limits once they are in the positions of power
No, an Idealist forced to face reality, did you think for a minute Jefferson was going to reject France’s offer cause he couldn’t find the exact provision in the Constitution that allowed a President to enter into an agreement to purchase territory from a foreign nation? Nah, he understood the reality
SmarterthanYou
rebel
It was a trap, first of all it had little to do with her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice and secondly, Blackburn was anticipating a nebulous response that she could frame into a cultural war issue, the purpose of the question, and Jackson pulled the rug out from beneath her with her response
so in order to avoid answering a question factually, she chose to remain obstructive so that the liberal base would not become apoplectic?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
No, an Idealist forced to face reality, did you think for a minute Jefferson was going to reject France’s offer cause he couldn’t find the exact provision in the Constitution that allowed a President to enter into an agreement to purchase territory from a foreign nation? Nah, he understood the reality
so you're saying that your reality requires ignoring constitutional limits, right?
when that legislative law violates constitutional limits, yes.
So all Law is arbitrary?
At one point you are telling us the Constitution can’t be interpreted beyond what is written, and next, that legally legislative law is all up to the individual interpretation. Can’t see the contradiction?
so in order to avoid answering a question factually, she chose to remain obstructive so that the liberal base would not become apoplectic?
No, she did answer it factually, there is more than one understanding of the word “women,” especially when one is expecting a precise answer relative to the purpose of the questioning
so you're saying that your reality requires ignoring constitutional limits, right?
My reality, no, reality in general, yes, as American History has proven, last I knew the Constitution had no provision to cover highways, air travel, or a Selective Service
danielpalos
Verified User
Right-wingers come across as having a problem because, a black girl, got on the Court.If the GOP takes over congress in november they may be able to get this pedo-loving monster removed from the court. Plus she's stupid. I doubt she can even read.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
So all Law is arbitrary?
At one point you are telling us the Constitution can’t be interpreted beyond what is written, and next, that legally legislative law is all up to the individual interpretation. Can’t see the contradiction?
no contradiction at all. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol and another amendment to make it legal again, yet with a 'law', they managed to imbue an alphabet agency with the power to declare substances illegal...............completely unconstitutional, therefore nullifying prohibition laws are well within the right of the people
SmarterthanYou
rebel
My reality, no, reality in general, yes, as American History has proven, last I knew the Constitution had no provision to cover highways, air travel, or a Selective Service
exactly.............but just because you accept it does not make it constitutional...........HUGE difference.
ExpressLane
Verified User
KBJ lied to cngress when she could not define what a woman was
danielpalos
Verified User
And, it matters as a Civil matter because?KBJ lied to cngress when she could not define what a woman was
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
If women are paying taxes they have recourse to the franchise.
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Courts don't rewrite laws. They interpret them when there are disagreements about their meaning.
But you will note that granting all legislative powers to Congress doesn't give Congress the power to interpret the Constitution. Nor does it give Congress the power to pass legislation that violates the Constitution.
If we accepted your interpretation of the Constitution then Congress could pass any laws they want to banning guns and there would be no ability to go to court to overturn those laws. After all you claimed the word "all" gives them power to do whatever they want.
The constitution says "ALL". And yes, if congress writes a law it should stand until the public forces congress to repeal it.
You say courts don't rewrite laws???!!!! HAHAHAHA. They rewrite laws all the time, even the constitution. In pleyler v doe 1982 they "interpreted" the constitution to give illegal aliens free k-12. Fact is there is nothing in the constitution about educational rights for anyone let alone foreign invaders. They took their bribes from mexico and made it up. Happens all the time. THINK
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Yes. We the people can overturn any USSC decision by amending the Constitution. Unless we amend it, the USSC's interpretation is what is considered the current meaning.
HAHAHA. They don't interpret stuff, the USSC just invents "rights" like they did in roe v wade. They do it all the time. THINK